Delta Plan, years in making, nears vote

When it comes to the Delta, all you hear about these days are tunnels. But a much broader plan to be voted on this week will govern the estuary long after most of us are dead.

Alex Breitler

When it comes to the Delta, all you hear about these days are tunnels. But a much broader plan to be voted on this week will govern the estuary long after most of us are dead.

After three years, tens of thousands of public comments and tens of millions of dollars spent, the Delta Stewardship Council is poised to adopt a new vision for the estuary - one that is supposed to balance the state's water needs with the fragile environment while also protecting the Delta as a unique place.

The legally enforceable Delta Plan could determine where we live, how our cities grow, the health of our farm-based economy and the very nature of the landscape around us.

Some will say the plan is a failure - particularly those within the Delta, who face the most change.

It is certainly complex, with dozens of wide-ranging policies and recommendations. And it is incomplete, based in part upon unfinished work such as the $14 billion tunnel plan that is still under discussion.

"It's very vague - it's not a precise plan," San Joaquin County Supervisor Ken Vogel said.

"It's an outline," he said, one that didn't change much over the past few years despite repeated criticisms from local agencies.

Phil Isenberg, the former Sacramento mayor who has chaired the council since its inception in 2010, said some observers will naturally feel the plan goes too far while others feel it doesn't go far enough.

"I feel pretty good about it," Isenberg said last week. "It's not everything I'd want it to be, but no report that has to be agreed upon by seven individuals is ever what you'd want it to be."

Here is some what the plan will do through the end of this century:

The policy: "Reduce reliance on the Delta." Water users can no longer extract water from the Delta unless they become more self-reliant.

The purpose: Two-thirds of Californians get at least some of their water from the Delta, but it is widely known that the estuary's health is suffering because it is forced to satisfy so many needs.

The response: Delta farmers have senior water rights and don't believe they should be lumped in with mass exporters of Delta water to Southern California. They say the plan ignores their senior rights. "The big issue is recognizing the priorities of the Delta," said Dante Nomellini, Stockton water attorney. "We're not supposed to pick up the exporters' burden."

Of course, the southland water exporters don't like this provision either, arguing that they have already suffered "disproportionate and severe water supply and reliability losses" as a result of efforts to protect the Delta. And controversy continues over what, exactly, it means to "reduce reliance."

The policy: "Locate new urban development wisely." The only development in the Delta must be within those areas of city or county plans that are already designated for growth.

The purpose: The Delta will face increasing pressure in the coming years from a growing population, while climate change is expected to put more pressure on the levees that protect Delta islands from flooding. The council says it needs to shield agriculture from urban growth while also reducing the risk to people and property.

The response: Stockton and San Joaquin County have both warned that the council's plan takes away local agencies' ability to plan for their own futures.

Half of Stockton is within the legal boundaries of the Delta. The city has warned in comment letters that the council's oversight "casts a giant shadow" on future development, potentially scaring off investors and threatening the revitalization of this and other communities.

The council has responded that the plan would "rarely if ever" affect routine development in areas already planned for that use. But the city replied earlier this year that a literal reading of the plan suggests it could still stop projects, perhaps even downtown redevelopment, from moving forward.

The policy: "Restore habitats at appropriate elevations."

The purpose: The Delta used to be a vast plain of expansive wetlands, providing habitat for fish and wildlife. Most of that habitat was destroyed when the Delta was drained, levees were built and farming commenced after the Gold Rush.

Combined with more natural river flow rules currently under consideration by the State Water Resources Control Board, recreating wetlands is an "essential" part of restoring the ecosystem, the council says.

The response: The degree to which widespread habitat restoration will help fish is unclear, since it has never been attempted on this scale. Limited habitat has already been restored, and yet fish populations continue to drop ever more precipitously, Nomellini said.

San Joaquin County has argued that turning farms into wetlands could devalue other growers' properties and make it more difficult to plant higher-value crops or to build new structures.

"We see agriculture as the big loser in this whole scheme," Vogel said.

What's more, San Joaquin County already has a habitat restoration program, allowing developers to mitigate for projects built elsewhere. Adding another layer of bureaucracy could stifle the existing plan.

"We're going to protect our plan at all costs," said Steve Mayo, who coordinates the local plan for the San Joaquin Council of Governments.

The policy: "Expand floodplains in levee projects."

The purpose: Streams such as the lower San Joaquin River are closely corralled by levees. They have little room to spread out in the event of a flood. This also limits the amount of habitat available along the side of the stream.

The response: Moving levees back from the river, and then maintaining the new wetlands, could be expensive for reclamation districts, the county argues. Poorly managed levee wetlands could be a "reservoir for harmful insects, noxious weeds, disease and rodents."

In general, the plan calls for continued investment in Delta levees, but not always to the highest possible standard.